Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Nanny State

WeComply: Catering to Regulatory Whims One Corporate Training Module at a Time

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 7.2.2014 10:45 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | WeComply/Facebook
(WeComply/Facebook)
WeComply/Facebook

Government regulation got you down? Don't worry; buy WeComply!

Owned by Thomson Reuters, WeComply produces corporate training modules and ethics courses. Many are devoted to helping employers comply with dumbass state and federal training requirements.

I suppose that's a valuable service. But there's just something vaugely icky about a bureaucracy-aiding agent that's literally called we comply. Comply with what? Whatever's the new regulatory hotness! For instance, WeComply just revamped its "Preventing Sexual Misconduct" modules for college campuses. 

Recently the Campus SaVE Act—not to be confused with the sex-trafficking SAVE Act—created a requirement that colleges and universities launch sexual-assault awareness and prevention programs for both students and employees. "Our Preventing Sexual Misconduct courses can help institutions ensure campus-wide compliance with the Campus SaVE Act," said Steve Perreault, global head of eLearning at WeComply.

From the company press release:

WeComply offers separate Preventing Sexual Misconduct training courses for faculty and staff members, teaching assistants, and students. Each version focuses on the special responsibilities and requirements of those individuals in preventing and handling complaints of sexual misconduct and maintaining a safe and respectful campus environment.

The 30-minute courses begin with a look at the various reasons for concern and an overview of anti-harassment laws and policies. The courses then discuss the Campus SaVE Act, sexual harassment and sexual violence, and the types of harassment and behavior to avoid. Other topics include reporting sexual misconduct, bystander intervention, responding to complaints, and the effects of trauma. The courses conclude with a discussion on how to avoid retaliation.

The shorter, 10-minute training course for students covers sexual violence, quid pro quo, hostile environment, when to intervene and what to do if it happens to you.

(The quid pro quo threw me too, but someone explained that it probably refers to handling "sleep with me if you want a good grade/promotion" type of situations, not a lesson on good sexual etiquette between students.)

How likely is a 10-minute video to be effective at teaching students anything on these serious and nuanced issues? Not very. This is simply a check-box that campuses now have to mark. And this is how feel-good federal regulations drive up the cost of doing business—which, in schools, is obviously passed on to students—and waste everyone's time.  

WeComply also offers courses on conflict minerals and "avoiding insider trading." 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Survey Says Obama is the Shittiest President Since End of World War II

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Nanny State
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (14)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. SugarFree   11 years ago

    “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a sexual harassment module boring a roomful of people – forever.”

    1. Brandybuck   11 years ago

      I used to work for a medical ultrasound company. We once had to undergo sexual harassment training, so we all dutifully filed off to the class. At the end of class during the Q&A section, one of our lead clinical folk asked the following [paraphrased from memory]:

      “My job description includes asking strangers to take off their clothes and lay back, whereupon I insert lubricated probes into their orifices, take photos them, then pay them for their time. Is there a special form I need to fill out?”

  2. Homple   11 years ago

    After “We Comply” comes “You Submit and Look Slippy About It”.

  3. flye   11 years ago

    My company makes their own preventing harassment training modules, and I would look forward to it because a buddy of mine was in some of the accompanying photos. There he is in the foreground looking sadly offended because in the background several coworkers are sharing a joke, “Did you hear the one about Dolly Parton’s breasts?”

    This was 2008, not 1978. And no they never gave us the punch line.

  4. WDATPDIM!?   11 years ago

    I suppose that’s a valuable service.

    Yes, it’s a very valuable service. Companies pay lawyers big bucks to help them navigate the compliance jungle. Anything Thomson can do to lower compliance costs is a good thing.

  5. wareagle   11 years ago

    part of me applauds the company for seizing an opportunity, albeit one artificially created by govt over-reach. Another part of me laments that this sort of shit exists.

    1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown   11 years ago

      Yeah, that’s exactly how I feel about it.

  6. Brandon   11 years ago

    Based on the title, I expected a picture of an androgynous pedophile with “We Comply” written on his hands and a creepy soulless grin.

  7. GILMORE   11 years ago

    What is more surprising about this story is that apparently you guys never heard of this stuff before.

    I guess not everyone works @ big corporations before moving to writing for Reason.

    1. Acosmist   11 years ago

      Oh wow, you ninja’d me on this. This was exactly what I thought.

  8. kilroy   11 years ago

    sexual-assault awareness and prevention

    Why do I have the feeling there will be an inverse relationship here and not the one they (supposedly) think.

  9. Acosmist   11 years ago

    “The quid pro quo threw me too”

    Have you never been gainfully employed? This is a routine sexual harassment term that comes up in any new hire orientation, ever.

  10. HazelMeade   11 years ago

    I keep misreading “SAVE Act” as “SLAVE Act”.

  11. Response   11 years ago

    The government version of the “WeSaySo” Corporation from the old muppet tv series… http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

DOJ Brings Kilmar Abrego Garcia Back to the U.S. After Insisting It Couldn't

Joe Lancaster | 6.9.2025 4:45 PM

Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information

Jacob Sullum | 6.9.2025 4:20 PM

Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline

Sophia Mandt | 6.9.2025 12:48 PM

FTC Pivots From Competition to Children

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.9.2025 11:00 AM

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Jack Nicastro | 6.9.2025 10:44 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!